Surgeons as Educators A Guide for Academic Development and Teaching Excellence

88

ingful assessment. A number can have no meaning out of context, and a percent-

age is useless without comparison. Assessment is the context for learning, while

“learning is a euphemism for potentially avoidable harm” [ 79 ].

In this dynamic, fast-paced field of surgery, it is unacceptable to allow experi-

ence, or learning in any form, to come from clinical mistakes. Some harm is

horribly unavoidable but is the duty of medical professionals to strive for excel-

lence. Excellence needs to mean more than the best at one’s institution or a flashy

new technique. It needs to be defined and continually refined by measureable

standards. Only through assessment methods as advanced as the techniques they

aim to evaluate can these standards can be set.

References

1. Fuchs KH. Minimally invasive surgery. Endoscopy. 2002;34(2):154–9.


2. American Educational Research Association.; American Psychological Association.; National
   Council on Measurement in Education.; Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and
   Psychological Testing (U.S.). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington,
   DC: American Educational Research Association; 1985.


3. American Educational Research Association.; American Psychological Association, et  al.
   Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational
   Research Association; 1999.


4. Brown T. Construct validity: A unitary concept for occupational therapy assessment and mea-
   surement. Hong Kong J Occup Ther. 2010;20(1):30–42.


5. Fried GM, et  al. Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg.
   2004;240(3):518–25; discussion 525–8


6. McCluney AL, et  al. FLS simulator performance predicts intraoperative laparoscopic skill.
   Surg Endosc. 2007;21(11):1991–5.


7. Soper NJ, Fried GM. The fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery: its time has come. Bull Am
   Coll Surg. 2008;93(9):30–2.


8. Sroka G, et  al. Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency
   improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room-a randomized controlled trial. Am J
   Surg. 2010;199(1):115–20.


9. Sweet RM, et  al. Introduction and validation of the American Urological Association Basic
   Laparoscopic Urologic Surgery skills curriculum. J Endourol. 2012;26(2):190–6.


10. Kowalewski TM, et al. Validation of the AUA BLUS tasks. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 1):998–1005.


11. Wilson M, et al. MIST VR: a virtual reality trainer for laparoscopic surgery assesses perfor-
    mance. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1997;79(6):403.


12. Ahlberg G, et  al. Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the
    error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Am J Surg.
    2007;193(6):797–804.


13. Rosser JC, Rosser LE, Savalgi RS. Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery.
    Arch Surg. 1997;132(2):200–4.


14. Korndorffer JR, et  al. Simulator training for laparoscopic suturing using performance goals
    translates to the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(1):23–9.


15. Van Sickle KR, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of curriculum-based training
    for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(4):560–8.


16. Smith CD, et al. Assessing laparoscopic manipulative skills. Am J Surg. 2001;181(6):547–50.


17. Cosman PH, et al. Virtual reality simulators: current status in acquisition and assessment of
    surgical skills. ANZ J Surg. 2002;72(1):30–4.

E.I. George et al.